MIT sues Gehry, citing leaks in $300m complex

Source: Boston Globe




The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has filed a negligence suit against world-renowned architect Frank Gehry, charging that flaws in his design of the $300 million Stata Center in Cambridge, one of the most celebrated works of architecture unveiled in years, caused leaks to spring, masonry to crack, mold to grow, and drainage to back up.

The suit says that MIT paid Los Angeles-based Gehry Partners $15 million to design the Stata Center, which was hailed by critics as innovative and eye-catching with its unconventional walls and radical angles. But soon after its completion in spring 2004, the center's outdoor amphitheater began to crack due to drainage problems, the suit says. Snow and ice cascaded dangerously from window boxes and other projecting roof areas, blocking emergency exits and damaging other parts of the building, according to the suit. Mold grew on the center's brick exterior, the suit says, and there were persistent leaks throughout the building.



Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/11/06/mit_sues_gehry_citing_leaks_in_300m_complex/

---

I always wondered why the building looked as if it was about to implode....

And it leaks, too? Really. I mean...c-r-a-p -- leaky c-r-a-p. The architecht MUST be a republicon, for this fugly building has that certain, ahhh, republicon look. At least to my hawk eyes.

If the building looks straight, you're drunk.

and have it wrecked while it is brand new. Have the leaks, mold, rats already there along with the lead paint. Can you imagine them building McMansions that looked like that?

They forgot to use one of these

From what I remember, every building that Frank Lloyd Wright built had roof issues.
To me, the issue is clear, they took a southern California Architect, and had him build in a place with climates he's not used to dealing with.
MIT is the client. They approved the design. They never asked "is this appropriate"?
Not to knock socal or anything, but it doesn't snow or have the northeastern climate of the northeast. Its like asking a New York architect to build in an earthquake zone.

MIT paid for design, and that's what they got. Design often creates challenges for livable space. It seems MIT didn't think about that.

He should have a basic understanding of the climate, but even if he had never stepped foot outside of SoCal, the fact of the matter is that the construction firm warned Gehry Partners about at least some of the design flaws (the drainage problem for the amphitheater, for one) and the architects would not adjust the design. MIT paid for a working building designed by a top architectural firm, and it has flaws. Time for the architect to remedy the flaws.

years, it is almost inexcusable to have these type of problems in a new building.

He designs in almost a pompous and screw you manner to the people that have to see and use the building. They squat in the space, a traditional building clad by a drapery of cartoon sheets. No real discernable consideration is taken for the climate, and people space around it. Usually sterile and plaza-like to show off the wierdness of the forms. It tiresome and boring and he's becoming a one trick pony real fast.

FLW did have leaky buildings, and small bathrooms (Guggenheim for example) and low ceilings to the point of claustrophobia. The big thing is that FLW gave us designs that were truly new and exciting WITH interiors that were new and exciting. Go in a G building and the interior has all the sameness of an insurance corporate headquarters.

He's so overrated.

I would hate to be the person walking under the eve of those shed roof appendages when a sheet of ice lets loose.

Thats what happens when architects prefer form over function. And a butt-ugly form it is, too. Post-modernist architects are the same type of people who think crucifixes in pee jars, punk rock and tattoos are high art.

They're both frequently abused forms that can be done very well.

That building, on the other hand, looks like a Seuss illustration minus all the charm.

High art was generally for the rich, the church and for the monarchies... I have a lot of respect for the populism of Punk Rock. Gehry by the way is considered by many to be high art and well above the work of Andres Serrano (Piss Christ)... The problem with Gehry (and his style) has relatively nothing to do with function. He draws lines in thin air and then puts the living space within the lines he's drawn. Certainly not Bauhaus, but I find van der Rohe's subdivisions just as oppressive and they are HIGHLY functional... functional to a fault.

Punk rock is the ultimate triumph of function over form.

"All you got is three chords"

"Yeah, but they're three good chords."

This Gehry crap should more likely be compared to bloated prog-rock bands.

is Gehry the same one who built the ugly Disney theater in downtown Los Angeles??

on edit - yes it is!

goddamn morons.

and hey, I like the buildings, it's a photographer's playground

Yes, we may have a renowned architectural school, but that won't keep us from getting suckered by some flim-flam artist.

I must admit that Gehry has changed thinking in architecture. It used to be that form followed function, with him form impedes function. :silly: :crazy: :silly:

Gehry has designed many buildings in many places all over the world. I don't know if his buildings have ever had this kind of problem before, but I certainly think it's absurd to automatically blame the architect - what if the construction company made mistakes? What if MIT wanted to save money on materials and it's their fault?

It's sad to read all of your responses, especially your aesthetic opinions of his work. What DO you like? Thomas Kinkade?

In the words of Gertrude Stein: Bad art is bad art is bad art.

There's a lot of what ifs in your reply.

Here's another one: What if MIT has a legitimate reason to complain after waiting three years for the problems to be resolved?

Last I checked, Thomas Kinkade was a painter. If the Stata building was constructed based on Frank Gehry's paintings, that would explain a lot.

As to what I like, I like functional things. I don't believe in branded architecture any more than I believe in branded sneakers or clothes.

about at least one of the major design flaws, so I find it hard to absolve the architects for that one.

As for aesthetic opinions, not everyone is going to like Gehry's startlingly different facades. That goes with the territory for architects. I say that as a big fan of Gehry designs.

Shame it's functional aspects are having problems.

And for the record, my favorite current artist is Yoshitaka Amano.

I'd like to meet the alumni who footed the bill for this one . . . MIT must have gotten them drunk after a football game or something . . .

And 33 of them list Gehry's name.

Quonset Hut Nation....we don't need no stinki'n arkytexture

is that they reflect what works. I attended college on the old University of Buffalo campus. The older buildings, including the main office building which was once an asylum, were functional and attractive. Of course, they included a lot of classical elements which are out of fashion. The newer buildings ranged from the bland to the butt ugly. What went up on the new campus is even worse. The dorms and the on-campus apartments are pretty bad inside; maybe one step up from Club Fed. From what I could tell, most buildings have no discernible front; every face looks like the service entrance! The Ellicott complex is my favorite. I was there for a fire drill once, and I was the only one in the class who knew where the fire stairs were hidden behind an unmarked door. Watching 60 people line up in front of an elevator didn't give me much respect for modern architects.


The worst part of the new campus? It was conceived as the ultimate self contained learning complex, so it was plonked down in the middle of a swamp/wet lands in a major suburb. It is unapproachable except by car; I think the nearest building is about 1/4 mile from any entrance. Satellite development surrounds the campus; a lot of new tech companies all on their own little campuses add to the suburban sprawl. Meanwhile, downtown Buffalo increasingly looks like a ghost town. A little forethought 30 years ago would have resulted in a campus set in the middle of a vibrant downtown. Too bad.

He is doing totally unique buildings that have never been done before, trying to create curving, fluid surfaces that have never happened in architecture before







http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/guggenheimbilbao/HPIM2061sgjpg

Downtown around the Walt Disney Concert Hall has gotten hotter by DEGREES because of the building's reflection. It is a real concern... Also, the main function of this building (Concerts) was achieved with very dubious results. There have had to be many alterations to the hall's entryways due to disturbing loudness issues because of the choice of hard stone and lack of diffusion.

Not a great hall... Of course some of that is going to be the acoustician's fault, but there is a lot of wasted space in those silver pirate ship hulls...

it is the same amount of energy that is pouring into downtown that has always poured in there.

Many problems that people complain about are really engineering rather than architectural issues.

It's the same amount of energy pouring onto the earth.

your logic is bizarre.

Global warming has to do with gases trapping the sun's heat.

All Gehry's building does is reflect energy that is already there to some other extremely local spot. Warming up downtown as a whole it out of the question, as well.

Please read the following document. http://www.sbse.org/awards/docs/2005/1187.pdf

And I guess Magnifying glasses don't burn Ants alive too... The concern here is focal organization of incoming light energy. The document chronicles several eyewitness accounts and verifiable temperature recordings for the vicinity which prove that focal direction of light creates hot spots around the hall. I was unclear. Concerns are not necessarily with a hotter downtown, but with more concentrated heat because of the building's focal patterns.

Someone got PAID to come up with that? Clearly I'm in the wrong line of work.

:rofl:

Those big overhangs dump any incoming snow directly over the entrances, the window sills on the inward leaning walls are flat so that water running down the windows tends to pool, etc. If you look at the building in person and its roof lines and try to imagine the flow of water down it it's quite obvious that leaks were inevitable.

A building that cannot keep its interior dry is one that is fundamentally flawed. As for the interior, it's a disaster. Massive ceiling heights on the 1st floor must yield phenomenal heating costs, the 1st floor benches are intensely uncomfortable plywood, and there's lots of grim gray concrete everywhere. Yes, I understand it's supposed to invoke the building that was there before, but there's a reason people don't decorate their houses with gray concrete interiors: it's depressing.

why would MIT approve a flawed design?! they have enough collective engineering brainpower to make any design work!

"enough collective engineering brainpower". That would definitely be M.I.T. Great university.

I was at a tech convention last week at the Boston Convention Center and I always stay in Cambridge when I'm there. We love this structure and I'm sorry there's a problem and I hope that Frank will do the right thing. But that said, we are big fans of his work and love The Disney here in Los Angeles on the outside and inside.

Poor Bass clarity... and unsuccessful high string projection for the upper terraces. The Vinyard is wrong, and there are noise issues. Not to mention a botched sound system design. Failure from the acoustic perspective IMHO. Gehry seems like a sculptor... not really an architect. His sculptures can be nice, but that doesn't excuse him.